Is it a sin to call Yahweh "God"?

[whowaswhocomes]

Let me explain a story:

There was a time in our Monotheism where people attributed all acts to God himself. AMEN I SAY TO YOU, WITH THOSE WHO HAVE EARS LISTEN.

Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”-2 Samuel 24:1

Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.-1 Chronicles 21:1

MY CHILDREN: THOSE WITH EARS LISTEN:

When you are given the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you have the full capacity to attribute the good to the bad and the bad to the good. THE SAVIOR CAME AS THE WORD TO CLARIFY THIS AS ST. JOHN SAYS:

“God is Light, in Him no darkness at all”-1 John 1:5

PLEASE LISTEN:

There was a time where our Laws of Moses were lost. Regardless, during the times of Ezra they were reinstated. However, the Scribes inserted the tetragrammaton in places they SHOULD NOT HAVE PUT THEM. THOSE WITH EARS LISTEN:

Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and **sowed weeds **among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

Those with Ears Listen:

ALL OF SCRIPTURE IS DIVINE BUT THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE THE SCRIBES INSERTED “THE LORD” Where they should not have. These are the weeds. However, if were were to have pulled them up thousands of years ago, the Wheat would have came with them. This is why ONLY THE CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE PREVAILS.

HOWEVER MY CHILDREN: THE FIG TREE IS BLOOMING AND SUMMER IS NEAR

 

[whowaswhocomes]

I PRAY MY CHILDREN. ASK THE HOLY SPIRIT TO GIVE YOU THIS INSIGHT. RECITE THE FOLLOWING SCRIPTURES I GIVE YOU IN YOUR HEARTS. THESE SEVEN SCRIPTURES EVERY CATHOLIC MUST PRAY ON. PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE PRAY FOR THE POPE EVERYDAY AND PLEASE TELL EVERY CATHOLIC TO PRAY FOR THE GLORIOUS OLIVE. PLEASE DWELL NIGHT AND DAY ON THE FOLLOWING SCRIPTURES:

1. “and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.”-Revelation 11: 8
2. “Out of Egypt I called MY(AND ONLY BEGOTTEN) Son”-Hosea 11:1
3. “Salvation comes from the Jews”-John 4:22

4.“Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’”-John 2:19

5." It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."-John 6:63

6.Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”-John 18:36

7.“Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?”-2 Corinthians 3:7-8

Please tell every Catholic to dwell on these seven verses. In addition, please, please, please remember the message of the Apostles Creed.

 

[iohannes13]

El was a name for a pagan god and was used in the early books of the Bible (i.e Elohim). It’s obvious in the names of the angels - MichaEL, RaphaEL, GabriEL. I’ve read that Yahweh was the name of a desert god from the region where Moses ended up after he fled Egypt. The article claimed that it was Moses that started using the name Yahweh. I read the article online somewhere, maybe some can find it, i won’t be able to anymore.

I read somewhere else that the northern europeans rejected the latin word Deus because they recognized it to be a variant of the name Zeus. But this may not be true. Is the root word for god related to the name Odin somehow?

 

[jcrichton]

Actually the Father who taught me old Testament class said that we are not meant to go around loosely saying Yahweh.

…it is Biblical… but only in the sence of “thou shall not take the Name of God in vain…”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

No, the Latin deus (Old Latin deiuos; related to Welsh duw, Lithuanian dievas, Avestan daeva, Sanskrit deva and Old Norse Tyr) comes from a different root (Proto-Indo-European *deiwos).

…thanks! I did not think it did… sometimes people tend to over-think things and they ignore that accidental occurrences do happen!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I once ran into that on another forum, being told that writing the Name in a perishable medium such as the internet was offensive to Jewish eyes.

What I found most fascinating, however, were the complaints against complying with such a request, as if loving our Jewish neighbours were wrong.

…so when the Unmentionable says to Moses this is how you should Bless Israel in my Name (YHWH) He meant, ‘insert any title or name’ that wouldn’t offend your sensibilities?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Mystophilus]

…so when the Unmentionable says to Moses this is how you should Bless Israel in my Name (YHWH) He meant, ‘insert any title or name’ that wouldn’t offend your sensibilities?

Nope. Our Jewish brethren believe that, when He said, “Neither shall ye profane my holy name” (Lev 22:32), He actually meant it, and so show their respect for the Name by not pronouncing it aloud and by not writing in places like this.

Some of us then also take Jesus at His word about loving our neighbours and doing unto them as we would have them do unto us, and so we are considerate of them and their devotional customs.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

…so when the Unmentionable says to Moses this is how you should Bless Israel in my Name (YHWH) He meant, ‘insert any title or name’ that wouldn’t offend your sensibilities?

Maran atha!

Angel

Exactly.
Fear of calling on God’s personal name was a later issue with the Jews; it is perhaps an issue related to how pronunciation changes with time – concurrent with the wiping out of the Jewish priesthood; they became uncertain how to pronounce it since their “oral” handing down of the tradition literally died.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Nope. Our Jewish brethren believe that, when He said, “Neither shall ye profane my holy name” (Lev 22:32), He actually meant it, and so show their respect for the Name by not pronouncing it aloud and by not writing in places like this.

I get the distinct impression that you missed his point.
For example – in Genesis, it says of the holy one’s that they “began to call on the NAME of the Lord.”; meaning his personal name.

And in the very scriptures Angel cites, Moses is told explicity to tell the Israelite’s his name is “YHWH”; so that oral transmission was inevitable and commanded.

Today, we know that the name “Jesus” means “God (personal name) saves.”.
Thus, anyone who pronounces Jesus’ name properly is implicitly pronouncing God’s proper name and at most dropping a “u” vowel.

We can’t help but be offensive to the Jewish nation !

Joshua, Jesus, Yeshua, or in my best estimation ‘Yuah-shua’ all are merely phonetic variants (heavy accents) attempting to sound out that name given to Moses all that time ago.

I find it sad that so much focus on the vowed form of the Tetragrammon YaHWeH (yah -way!? I have My Way!) is soo far off; as in “not even close” – and yet so many are duped into believing that it is the more proper pronunciation.

Really: Writing and speaking it is truly vain. It’s a mixture of two spellings specifically designed to PREVENT the speaking of God’s personal name by Jewish Rabbis (Masorites).

BUT, I will say as a Catholic, and with our liturgy – “Jesus is LORD.”

I do sometimes wonder if God laughs at our hopeless Americanized “J”

 

[jcrichton]

Nope. Our Jewish brethren believe that, when He said, “Neither shall ye profane my holy name” (Lev 22:32), He actually meant it, and so show their respect for the Name by not pronouncing it aloud and by not writing in places like this.

Some of us then also take Jesus at His word about loving our neighbours and doing unto them as we would have them do unto us, and so we are considerate of them and their devotional customs.

…so to love others, Christians should not pronounce the Name of God because it is better to call God “unnamed” than to have others suffer our insensibilities of calling God by the Name He Gave Himself? :whacky:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Exactly.
Fear of calling on God’s personal name was a later issue with the Jews; it is perhaps an issue related to how pronunciation changes with time – concurrent with the wiping out of the Jewish priesthood; they became uncertain how to pronounce it since their “oral” handing down of the tradition literally died.

…so when God says to Moses ‘why ask my Name it is Wonderful’ (paraphrased) …yet, offers: “I AM” or “I AM WHO AM” (or something to that effect) and later on both tells Moses to Bless people in His Name and makes it a particular form of reference (“I ‘insert name or equivalent here’”) we are meant to dismiss God’s Revelation?

…and is that not enduring man’s tradition to refrain from hurting “feelings” and ignoring God’s Commandment?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I get the distinct impression that you missed his point.
For example – in Genesis, it says of the holy one’s that they “began to call on the NAME of the Lord.”; meaning his personal name.

And in the very scriptures Angel cites, Moses is told explicity to tell the Israelite’s his name is “YHWH”; so that oral transmission was inevitable and commanded.

Today, we know that the name “Jesus” means “God (personal name) saves.”.
Thus, anyone who pronounces Jesus’ name properly is implicitly pronouncing God’s proper name and at most dropping a “u” vowel.

We can’t help but be offensive to the Jewish nation !

Joshua, Jesus, Yeshua, or in my best estimation ‘Yuah-shua’ all are merely phonetic variants (heavy accents) attempting to sound out that name given to Moses all that time ago.

I find it sad that so much focus on the vowed form of the Tetragrammon YaHWeH (yah -way!? I have My Way!) is soo far off; as in “not even close” – and yet so many are duped into believing that it is the more proper pronunciation.

Really: Writing and speaking it is truly vain. It’s a mixture of two spellings specifically designed to PREVENT the speaking of God’s personal name by Jewish Rabbis (Masorites).

BUT, I will say as a Catholic, and with our liturgy – “Jesus is LORD.”

I do sometimes wonder if God laughs at our hopeless Americanized “J”

:extrahappy::extrahappy::extrahappy:

You fully get it!

It is using God’s Name in vain that is forbidden!

…how can we pass along the Sacred Writings and the Sacred Tradition if we omit God’s Name whenever it presents itself?

…how can we demonstrate that we love anyone if we refuse to Bless them in the Name of God?

Maran atha!

 

[patrick457]

…so when God says to Moses ‘why ask my Name it is Wonderful’ (paraphrased) …yet, offers: “I AM” or “I AM WHO AM” (or something to that effect) and later on both tells Moses to Bless people in His Name and makes it a particular form of reference (“I ‘insert name or equivalent here’”) we are meant to dismiss God’s Revelation?

…and is that not enduring man’s tradition to refrain from hurting “feelings” and ignoring God’s Commandment?

Maran atha!

Angel

Well, historically, it would seem that Adonai had more or less displaced Yhwh by 300 BC. We can see this ultra-reverence already being implied in the Dead Sea Scrolls: in some fragments the Name is written in the ancient Paleo-Hebrew script (in contrast to the rest of the text, which is in square script), in others it is represented by four dots, in still others it is written out as אדוני (Adonai) outright, in yet others it was written in red ink. In fact, the sectarian scribes were so careful not to even make constant use of the Tetragrammaton that it mainly only occurs in scriptural texts and quotations: often they made use of substitute words like El or Adonai or pronouns like “I” or “He.” In fact, in the sectarian rulebook known as the Damascus Document we have the following:

…(He shall not) swear by (the Name), nor by Aleph and Lamed (Elohim), nor by Aleph and Daleth (Adonai), but a binding oath by the curses of the covenant.
He shall not mention the Law of Moses for…were he to swear and then break (his oath) he would profane the Name.

I think this is part of the attitude of “making a fence around the Torah” both in order to keep its sanctity (by ensuring that no one could ever actually break it) as well as to preserve its commands in a changing culture. The Torah does say that “You will not take up the name of Yhwh for a falsehood” and that “He who blasphemes the name of Yhwh must be put to death.”

Now the ironic thing is, it would seem that it was actually Christians who propagated the use of “the Lord.” In some early copies of the Septuagint for instance the Name is either transliterated as ιαω Iaō (so in one fragment 4QLXX[sup]Levb[/sup]), or represnted by a blank space or four dots or written in paleo-Hebrew.

 

[jcrichton]

Well, historically, it would seem that Adonai had more or less displaced Yhwh by 300 BC. We can see this ultra-reverence already being implied in the Dead Sea Scrolls: in some fragments the Name is written in the ancient Paleo-Hebrew script (in contrast to the rest of the text, which is in square script), in others it is represented by four dots, in still others it is written out as אדוני (Adonai) outright, in yet others it was written in red ink. In fact, the sectarian scribes were so careful not to even make constant use of the Tetragrammaton that it mainly only occurs in scriptural texts and quotations: often they made use of substitute words like El or Adonai or pronouns like “I” or “He.” In fact, in the sectarian rulebook known as the Damascus Document we have the following:

…(He shall not) swear by (the Name), nor by Aleph and Lamed (Elohim), nor by Aleph and Daleth (Adonai), but a binding oath by the curses of the covenant.
He shall not mention the Law of Moses for…were he to swear and then break (his oath) he would profane the Name.

I think this is part of the attitude of “making a fence around the Torah” both in order to keep its sanctity (by ensuring that no one could ever actually break it) as well as to preserve its commands in a changing culture. The Torah does say that “You will not take up the name of Yhwh for a falsehood” and that “He who blasphemes the name of Yhwh must be put to death.”

Now the ironic thing is, it would seem that it was actually Christians who propagated the use of “the Lord.” In some early copies of the Septuagint for instance the Name is either transliterated as ιαω Iaō (so in one fragment 4QLXX[sup]Levb[/sup]), or represnted by a blank space or four dots or written in paleo-Hebrew.

Thank you for your post (I am quite limited so I enjoy informative posts); though this explains the origins of some of the practices, I still find that it does not satisfies the query since Scriptures does not Command that God’s Name not be used but rather that it not be used in vain (disrespect; blasphemy, etc.) …so how can calling on God’s Name for Blessing or as personal worship be deemed disrespectful, offensive, sinful?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[patrick457]

Thank you for your post (I am quite limited so I enjoy informative posts); though this explains the origins of some of the practices, I still find that it does not satisfies the query since Scriptures does not Command that God’s Name not be used but rather that it not be used in vain (disrespect; blasphemy, etc.) …so how can calling on God’s Name for Blessing or as personal worship be deemed disrespectful, offensive, sinful?

Maran atha!

Angel

Not so much that the act of invoking the Name itself is disrespectful, but because by ‘opening’ it to common usage one risks possible profnity of and disrespect to the Name by other people, apparently.

And BTW, according to later Jewish tradition the actual Name was still used by the high priest in the Temple (so the command to bless the people in Yhwh’s Name would still have been ostensibly followed), but only once every year. The Temple, the tradition implies, is so sacred that it is the only place in the world where the Name could be said (and even then one legend implies that the high priest intentionally mispronounced or garbled the Name). So when the Temple was destroyed, the Name disappeared with it.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I think this is part of the attitude of “making a fence around the Torah” both in order to keep its sanctity (by ensuring that no one could ever actually break it)

I suppose, but then they couldn’t really follow the law either…

as well as to preserve its commands in a changing culture. The Torah does say that “You will not take up the name of Yhwh for a falsehood” and that “He who blasphemes the name of Yhwh must be put to death.”

Now the ironic thing is, it would seem that it was actually Christians who propagated the use of “the Lord.” In some early copies of the Septuagint for instance the Name is either transliterated as ιαω Iaō (so in one fragment 4QLXX[sup]Levb[/sup]), or represnted by a blank space or four dots or written in paleo-Hebrew.

Hmmm… That’s an interesting thought.
It rests on the idea that the ultra conservatism came second…; but we would need to know that “Lord” did not occur first, and then iaO second.
Or again, we would need to know that iaO actually is a pronunciation intending to approximate the correct sounds – otherwise, Christians are at most choosing a single obscuring spelling over a large variety of them once the phonetic spelling has already been lost.

OTOH: The Omega ending is a mild surprise; for although I can observe it in the plural ending “Jews” in Luke 23:37

Luke 23:37 και λεγοντες ει συ ει ο βασιλευς των ιουδαιων σωσον σεαυτον

The long O sound is not itself part of the word “Jew/Judah”, but is a Greek inflection.

See also, Hebre 8:8 … επι τον οικον ιουδα
Judah (iouda).

Judah is specifically God’s personal name with the number 4 (letter d) inserted into it, to prevent pronunciation of the divine name. None the less, “Judah” means, YHWH gave the 4th son (Judah) to Leah.

I’m pretty certain, then, that the usage iaO is a contraction, very similar to “Jah”.

The contraction is missing intermediate sounds as well; and isn’t his complete voweled name.

Not that it’s surprising – I mean, if the rest of the documents in the caves were already trying to prevent the saying of his name; it would be surprising that the scribes did nothing to eradicate older dangerous copies of his name if they were not protected; BUt of course, they were already obscure – too – just by a different convention.

 

[jcrichton]

I suppose, but then they couldn’t really follow the law either…

Hmmm… That’s an interesting thought.
It rests on the idea that the ultra conservatism came second…; but we would need to know that “Lord” did not occur first, and then iaO second.
Or again, we would need to know that iaO actually is a pronunciation intending to approximate the correct sounds – otherwise, Christians are at most choosing a single obscuring spelling over a large variety of them once the phonetic spelling has already been lost.

OTOH: The Omega ending is a mild surprise; for although I can observe it in the plural ending “Jews” in Luke 23:37

Luke 23:37 και λεγοντες ει συ ει ο βασιλευς των ιουδαιων σωσον σεαυτον

The long O sound is not itself part of the word “Jew/Judah”, but is a Greek inflection.

See also, Hebre 8:8 … επι τον οικον ιουδα
Judah (iouda).

Judah is specifically God’s personal name with the number 4 (letter d) inserted into it, to prevent pronunciation of the divine name. None the less, “Judah” means, YHWH gave the 4th son (Judah) to Leah.

I’m pretty certain, then, that the usage iaO is a contraction, very similar to “Jah”.

The contraction is missing intermediate sounds as well; and isn’t his complete voweled name.

Not that it’s surprising – I mean, if the rest of the documents in the caves were already trying to prevent the saying of his name; it would be surprising that the scribes did nothing to eradicate older dangerous copies of his name if they were not protected; BUt of course, they were already obscure – too – just by a different convention.

…hi Huiou!

…not to beat a dead horse… but is YHWH congruent/same to I AM/I AM WHO AM?.. if so… how does a nation losses that pronounciation… I mean, the English spoken in the US is corroded with all sorts of borrowed words and marketing inventions but “I Am” has not lost its meaning (not versed in old English with the thous and yeas…) …so my question is, how can the Biblical Hebrew/Arameic term for “I Am” not survive to modern times… granted words change in usage as “modern” values/meanings are implemented… but is alpha not still the first letter of the Greek alphabet?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Huiou_Theou]

…hi Huiou!

…not to beat a dead horse… but is YHWH congruent/same to I AM/I AM WHO AM?..

That’s my understanding, although I haven’t exhaustively studied the Hebrew for examples of it.
I don’t recall ever seeing it used when it didn’t mean God’s name – but don’t quote me on that.

if so… how does a nation losses that pronounciation… I mean, the English spoken in the US is corroded with all sorts of borrowed words and marketing inventions but “I Am” has not lost its meaning (not versed in old English with the thous and yeas…) …so my question is, how can the Biblical Hebrew/Arameic term for “I Am” not survive to modern times… granted words change in usage as “modern” values/meanings are implemented… but is alpha not still the first letter of the Greek alphabet?

Maran atha!

Angel

I have some speculation on this;
First, think about the “Glory Be” prayer.
It talks about God’s perfection & power in three ways.

Past, Present, Future.

The name of God is also spoken in three ways to Moses.

Likewise – In English: We don’t use the same word to represent past, present, and future – “is” ness. We also break the word’s forms out in the Glory prayer.

But, other languages do have forms that combine the three basic tense ideas.

Look at Luke 23:46 – and recognize “Father” is Jesus’ very last word/idea upon dying.

Then look at John 19:30;

The two passages (in English translation) do not agree on what his last word was – !or even if it were the same topic!.

But, from studying Greek – I know that the translation “it is finished” is about as lame as one can get. The word is in the perfect tense – meaning whatever happened was complete in the past, is now, and will continue on for as long as the one causing it exists. (Eternal in this case.)

Now recall the glory be – again – and recognize Jesus’ last word in it’s etymology means “being”; and by it’s spelling/form in John – it means “perfect being”.

When understood in this way, Jesus last word in John’s Gospel really is his Father’s personal name – but rendered in Greek by it’s meaning. (Not pronunciation).

For the first time, the Greek speaking Gentiles had access to the Father through Jesus – his sacrifice being consummated; and they would repeat his name as often as they recalled Jesus’ last words.

– Just so –

I don’t know Hebrew well enough to know exactly how all three variations of being are to be pronounced; and I get the idea from reading history and anecdotes from Hebrew scholars – that over most the previous millenia (recall we’re only 200+ years old in the USA) before Jesus’ time; the language and pronunciation changed. (I suppose it’s like Slang with a vengeance – and vowel drift; eg: compare how baby is said in the USA “Bayb(EE)” vs. Europe ( “Bayb(ih)”. )

So, When I ask about the pronunciation of God’s name – I’m really talking about, how many changes has vocalization gone through over the last 2800+ years? eg: Both translational, and pronunciation / accenting changes from the original language and time.

I do wonder, with you, why it is that the original pronunciation isn’t just easily found when doing a web-search, or in basic Hebrew learning texts – but it isn’t.

I don’t know if the problem is that the original Hebrews had a way to combine all three variations of “being” into a single name spoken differently than the constituent words; Or whether it’s just taboo to say “I am”; or if more than one vowel is acceptable to use in certain words without changing their meaning – and simultaneously that God’s name requires one to use a particular vowel; etc. for it isn’t revealed in more than one way.

But I DO know that there are a plethora of ways that Jews came up with to almost say his name, in order to avoid the risk of using it in vain – but to “legalistically” have not said it! So, I do know there are many ways that it is “wrong” to say God’s personal name; and considering the history of Israel – there are many ways his name was almost said, that I don’t want to repeat.

 

[patrick457]

…hi Huiou!

…not to beat a dead horse… but is YHWH congruent/same to I AM/I AM WHO AM?.. if so… how does a nation losses that pronounciation…

אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה ’ehyeh ’ăšer ’ehyeh (“I-be that I-be”), you mean? Yep, Yhwh is, as per the consensus theory, thought to be related to ’ehyeh (1st person singular imperfect), both coming from the Semitic root היה h-y-h (hāyah) ‘to be, to become’.

 

[patrick457]

Judah is specifically God’s personal name with the number 4 (letter d) inserted into it, to prevent pronunciation of the divine name. None the less, “Judah” means, YHWH gave the 4th son (Judah) to Leah.

There is that idea, yes, that Yəhûḏāh is a combination of the Name and the verb yādāh ‘to praise’. (Genesis 29:35) However, some think that Genesis provides a folk etymology for the origin of the name: William F. Albright proposed that originally, Yəhûḏāh was the passive verbal form of yādāh, and was originally followed by 'Ēl (represented by the final -āh), giving us something like Jehudael or Jehudeel “Let 'Ēl be praised.” A.R. Millard proposes something similar, although he thinks that the original name would have been something like Jehudjah.